4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 1 of 79

Pg ID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANDREW SHIRVELL, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL A. COX, individually; MICHAEL ONDEJKO, individually; CAROL L. ISAACS, individually; THOMAS C. CAMERON, individually; DOUGLAS BRAMBLE, individually; BILL SCHUETTE, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Michigan, Defendants. / Andrew L. Shirvell (P70472) In Pro Se P.O. Box 353701 Palm Coast, FL 32135 shirvell@sbcglobal.net (734) 476-3916 CASE NO. ______________

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND There is no other action between these parties arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as alleged in this Complaint pending in this Court, nor has any such action been previously filed and dismissed after having been assigned a judge.

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 2 of 79

Pg ID 2

1.

This is an action for damages and other relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, stemming from Plaintiff Shirvell’s unlawful termination from his position as a Michigan assistant attorney general on November 8, 2010.

2.

Plaintiff Andrew Shirvell is a citizen of the State of Florida and a former assistant attorney general for the State of Michigan.

3.

Defendant Michael A. Cox is a citizen of Michigan and resides in Wayne County. Defendant Cox is the former Attorney General of the State of Michigan. Defendant Cox is being sued in his individual capacity.

4.

Defendant Michael Ondejko is a citizen of Michigan and upon information and belief resides in southeastern Michigan. Defendant Ondejko is a nonattorney employee of the Michigan Department of Attorney General (hereafter referred to as the “Department”). Defendant Ondejko is being sued in his individual capacity.

5.

Defendant Carol L. Isaacs is a citizen of Michigan and upon information and belief resides in Ingham County. Defendant Isaacs serves as the Chief Deputy Attorney General at the Department. Defendant Isaacs is being sued in her individual capacity.

6.

Defendant Thomas C. Cameron is a citizen of Michigan and upon information and belief resides in Wayne County. Defendant Cameron

2

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 3 of 79

Pg ID 3

serves as a Bureau Chief at the Department. Defendant Cameron is being sued in his individual capacity. 7. Defendant Douglas Bramble is a citizen of Michigan and upon information and belief resides in Ingham County. Defendant Bramble is the former Director of Human Resources at the Department. Defendant Bramble is being sued in his individual capacity. 8. Defendant Bill Schuette is a citizen of Michigan and upon information and belief resides in Midland County. Defendant Schuette is the current Attorney General of the State of Michigan. Defendant Schuette is being sued in his official capacity as state Attorney General. 9. The amount in controversy exceeds seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000), exclusive of interest and costs. 10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this action under Article III, § 2 of the United States Constitution and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. 11. Venue is appropriate in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), because at least one of the Defendants resides within the district and all of the Defendants are citizens of Michigan.

3

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 4 of 79

Pg ID 4

Background Facts 2002-2003 12. Plaintiff Shirvell graduated from the University of Michigan with honors in April 2002 with a Bachelor of Arts in history and political science. Plaintiff Shirvell had served as president of the University’s pro -life student group, which is known as Students for Life, from 2000-2002. 13. In or around 2002, Defendant Cox, then an assistant prosecutor at the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office, began officially campaigning for the Republican nomination for state Attorney General. 14. In July 2002, Defendant Cox hired Plaintiff Shirvell as the scheduler for the Mike Cox for Attorney General Campaign immediately after reviewing Plaintiff Shirvell’s resume and personally interviewing Plaintiff Shirvell. 15. On or about October 1, 2002, Defendant Ondejko began working at the Department as an investigator after retiring from the Romulus Police Department. Defendant Ondejko was hired by then-Attorney General Jennifer Granholm. 16. Following Defendant Cox’s electoral win in November 2002, Defendant Cox chose as his new Chief Deputy Defendant Isaacs, who had never previously worked at the Department.

4

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 5 of 79

Pg ID 5

17. After Defendant Cox’s inauguration as state Attorney General, the Department – at Defendant Cox’s direction – hired Plaintiff Shirvell in February 2003 to serve as a paid personal research assistant to Defendants Cox and Isaacs. 18. In the spring of 2003, Defendant Cox assigned Defendant Ondejko to work on the legendary Kwame Kilpatrick Manoogian Mansion investigation. As a result of that investigation, Defendant Cox famously concluded that the party that many believe took place at the Manoogian Mansion was nothing but an urban legend. 19. In August 2003, Plaintiff Shirvell began law school at the then-Ann-Arborbased Ave Maria School of Law. Once he began law school, Plaintiff Shirvell temporarily left state employment but was rehired again in or about October 2003 to complete research projects as needed. 2004 20. Upon information and belief, sometime in or around 2004, Defendant Cox hired Defendant Cameron for a supervisory position within the Department. Defendant Cameron had previously worked with Defendant Cox at the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office. Defendant Cameron quickly became known around the Department as a F.O.M. [Friend of Mike’s]. 5

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 6 of 79

Pg ID 6

21. On or about June 1, 2004, Adam Jones began working at the Department in the communications office as a speech writer for Defendant Cox. 22. From June 2004 to August 2004, Plaintiff Shirvell worked full-time at the Department’s headquarters in Lansing, again as a paid research assistant in the Department’s Executive Division. Moreover, during this time period, and at Defendant Isaacs’ direction, Plaintiff Shirvell also worked one-day a week as a legal intern in the Department’s Public Employment, Elections, & Tort Defense (PEET) Division at its then-office near South Lansing. 23. At the end of August 2004, Plaintiff Shirvell received an excellent evaluation by then-PEET Division Chief Patrick O’Brien, who wrote that “Mr. Shirvell is a very diligent and hard working law clerk. His work product is of high quality especially in light of [the] fact he is only a first year law student.” 24. On or about September 13, 2004, Adam Jones contacted Plaintiff Shirvell and asked for help in crafting Defendant Cox’s speech before Right to Life of Michigan’s annual conference later that month. Plaintiff Shirvell provided Jones with significant help and, according to Jones, the final speech was extensively drawn from Plaintiff Shirvell’s suggestions.

6

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 7 of 79

Pg ID 7

25. In the fall of 2004, Plaintiff Shirvell worked every weekend supervising literature drops for political candidates that Defendant Cox personally supported. 2005 26. In or about mid-March 2005, Defendant Isaacs abruptly resigned her position as Chief Deputy Attorney General and left the Department. Defendant Isaacs had reportedly become terrified of Defendant Cox and, on at least one occasion, left a meeting in tears after Defendant Cox allegedly humiliated her in front of others. 27. By mid-2005, Defendant Cox had acquired a reputation within the Department as mean-spirited, unpredictable, and ill-tempered, especially with respect to how he treated the Department’s employees. On several occasions, Plaintiff Shirvell personally observed Cox’s erratic behavior and tantrums, starting from when Plaintiff Shirvell was first hired as Defendant Cox’s campaign scheduler in 2002. Plaintiff Shirvell observed that everyone who was close to Defendant Cox walked on egg-shells around him for fear of setting him off. 28. In or about May 2005, Defendant Cox’s speech writer, Adam Jones, left the Department.

7

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 8 of 79

Pg ID 8

29. From June 2005 to August 2005, Plaintiff Shirvell again worked full-time at the Department’s headquarters in Lansing as a paid research assistant in the Department’s Executive Division, this time under the direct supervision of Stu Sandler, who served in the Department’s Executive Division as the Director of External Affairs. Prior to Sandler beginning his role with the Department in January 2003, Sandler had served as Defendant Cox’s deputy campaign manager for the 2002 Mike Cox for Attorney General Campaign. 30. At Sandler’s direction, Plaintiff Shirvell worked during this time period with Eric Restuccia, then-Chief of the Department’s Appellate Division. More specifically, Plaintiff Shirvell worked with Restuccia in June 2005 on legal research projects pertaining to Michigan’s third -attempt to outlaw partial-birth abortion, a.k.a. the Legal Birth Definition Act. In August 2005, Plaintiff Shirvell worked with Restuccia on legal research projects concerning a lawsuit challenging Michigan’s 2004 constitutional amendment barring “same-sex marriage” and civil unions for homosexuals. 31. Sandler directed Plaintiff Shirvell to work with Restuccia on the aforementioned legal projects with full knowledge that, within the past year, Plaintiff Shirvell had garnered significant publicity for engaging in 8

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 9 of 79

Pg ID 9

political activism against then-State Representative Alma Wheeler-Smith, a prominent partial-birth abortion advocate. 32. Sandler also directed Plaintiff Shirvell to work on the aforementioned legal projects with full knowledge that, in the summer of 2005, Plaintiff Shirvell had garnered significant publicity for launching a campaign to remove a homosexual pride decal on the front-door of an Ann Arbor pizzeria. At one point Sandler even joked that Plaintiff Shirvell was garnering more publicity than Defendant Cox was getting as Attorney General. 33. In or about mid-August 2005, Defendant Ondejko enrolled at Ave Maria School of Law and began his studies as a full-time law student. However, Defendant Ondejko continued to work at the Department an average of fifteen (15) to twenty (20) hours a week. At the time he was a law student, Defendant Ondejko was serving as a special agent within the Department’s Criminal Division and was “primarily involved in child porn cases and chat cases [and] [c]hild predator cases.” 34. In the fall of 2005, Ave Maria School of Law’s chaplain, Fr. Michael Orsi, called Defendant Ondejko into his office. During this meeting, Defendant Ondejko offered to assist Orsi in Orsi’s efforts to wipe clean the hardrive of a computer belonging to a fellow priest accused of possessing child pornography. 9

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 10 of 79

Pg ID 10

35. In October 2005, Plaintiff Shirvell, who was in his final year of studies at Ave Maria School of Law, was contacted by Sandler to do some extensive paid political research on well-known high-profile attorney Geoffrey Fieger. Sandler told Plaintiff Shirvell that Defendant Cox personally wanted the information on Fieger, but did not disclose why. 36. Soon after Plaintiff Shirvell delivered the research materials, Defendant Cox publicly disclosed on November 9, 2005 that he had had an extramarital affair and that Fieger was allegedly trying to blackmail him over it. According to Defendant Cox, the extramarital affair took place prior to his election as state Attorney General in 2002. 37. Plaintiff Shirvell first learned of Defendant Cox’s extramarital affair through an e-mail Defendant Cox sent to his supporters on November 9, 2005. Although Plaintiff Shirvell was shocked and saddened by Defendant Cox’s immoral behavior as well as his failure to disclose it earlier, Plaintiff Shirvell continued to support Defendant Cox. 38. While many others immediately shunned Defendant Cox and waited for his political demise, Plaintiff Shirvell publicly stood-up for Defendant Cox on several occasions, including by responding publicly to a nasty anonymous letter Plaintiff Shirvell received in his student mailbox attacking Defendant Cox for his adultery. Plaintiff Shirvell also had a 10

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 11 of 79

Pg ID 11

Mass said for Defendant Cox and his family in December 2005 at St. Mary Student Parish in Ann Arbor. 39. At the conclusion of the school semester in December 2005, Defendant Ondejko abandoned his studies at Ave Maria School of Law and returned to full-time work at the Department. Although Defendant Ondejko and Plaintiff Shirvell had never specifically crossed paths at the law school, Defendant Ondejko “knew” Plaintiff Shirvell’s name and knew about Plaintiff Shirvell’s pro-life, pro-family activism, including the successful resolution, in September 2005, of Plaintiff Shirvell’s campaign to remove a homosexual pride decal at a local pizzeria. 2006 40. From January 2006 to April 2006, Plaintiff Shirvell worked two days a week, under Sandler’s direction, for the Mike Cox for Attorney General Re-Election Campaign doing a variety of political tasks. 41. In May 2006, Plaintiff Shirvell graduated from Ave Maria School of Law and then sat for, and passed, the July 2006 Michigan Bar Examination. 42. Immediately after taking the Michigan Bar Exam, Plaintiff Shirvell began working full-time for the Mike Cox for Attorney General Re-Election Campaign. Sandler was promoted to campaign manager and Plaintiff Shirvell was promoted to deputy campaign manager. 11

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 12 of 79

Pg ID 12

43. At around the same time, in or about August 2006, Defendant Cox hired a retired Romulus police officer, Gordy Malaniak, as his personal driver for the re-election campaign and for official-state-business activities. Malaniak and Defendant Ondejko had worked cases together when both worked for the Romulus Police Department. 44. In or about September 2006, Defendant Cox surprised many Department employees by re-hiring Defendant Isaacs as Chief Deputy Attorney General after her successor – a long-time Department employee – left for a partnership in a private law firm after less than a year-and-a-half as Defendant Cox’s Chief Deputy. 45. Just prior to Defendant Cox’s re-election to his second and final four-year term as state Attorney General in November 2006, the Department hired Plaintiff Shirvell as a legal assistant in the Department’s Public Service Division, which was housed in a separate office near South Lansing. 46. On the night of Defendant Cox’s re-election victory, November 7, 2006, Plaintiff Shirvell met Defendant Ondejko for the first time. Defendant Ondejko, Malaniak, Plaintiff Shirvell, and just a handful of others continued to celebrate Defendant Cox’s victory at a bar following the conclusion of the official victory party. At this intimate gathering, Defendant Ondejko told Plaintiff Shirvell that Defendant Ondejko had 12

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 13 of 79

Pg ID 13

actually been a student at Ave Maria School of Law for just the fall 2005 semester and that he was employed by the Department as a criminal investigator. 2007 47. In April 2007, Defendant Cox summoned Plaintiff Shirvell to his office suite at the Department’s Lansing headquarters and told Plaintiff Shirvell that he was transferring Plaintiff Shirvell to the Appellate Division to work under Restuccia part-time and to temporarily work part-time as Defendant Cox’s personal research assistant once again. 48. Thereafter, in May 2007, Plaintiff Shirvell was promoted to an assistant attorney general. 49. In or about July 2007, Plaintiff Shirvell was contacted via telephone by one of his former professors at Ave Maria School of Law, Stephen Safranek, who had been fired, or was about to be fired, by the law school. Safranek asked Plaintiff Shirvell for help in reporting Ave Maria School of Law to the Department for various violations of the law – both criminal and civil. Knowing that Defendant Ondejko had been a law student at Ave Maria, Plaintiff Shirvell directed Safranek to contact Defendant Ondejko as well as Assistant Attorney General Tracy Sonneborn. At this time, Plaintiff

13

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 14 of 79

Pg ID 14

Shirvell was completely unaware of Defendant Ondejko’s fall 2005 conversation with Fr. Orsi. 50. On or about July 24, 2007, Safranek telephoned Defendant Ondejko and then had a follow-up e-mail exchange about Fr. Orsi and Orsi’s efforts in the fall of 2005 to cleanse child pornography off the hardrive of a computer belonging to a fellow priest. 51. In his July 24, 2007 e-mail, Safranek made perfectly clear that he called Defendant Ondejko “about the Orsi matter and gave [Defendant Ondejko] background and asked [Defendant Ondejko] to investigate the matters further.” Safranek was then equally clear in his e-mail that it was Defendant Ondejko who responded to Safranek’s request by disclosing that he had had a conversation with Fr. Orsi about this very matter in the fall of 2005. 52. In August 2007, Plaintiff Shirvell’s temporary assignment as Defendant Cox’s personal research assistant concluded and Restuccia assigned Plaintiff Shirvell a full case load of state criminal appellate and federal habeas corpus cases. 53. Also, in August 2007, Plaintiff Shirvell began writing a weekly pro-life blog column for RightMichigan.com on his own time as a private citizen.

14

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 15 of 79

Pg ID 15

54. On or about Labor Day, September 3, 2007, which was several months after former Professor Safranek was fired from Ave Maria School of Law, Safranek called Plaintiff Shirvell on Plaintiff Shirvell’s personal cell phone and informed him that Safranek had received a letter signed by Defendant Cox indicating that Safranek’s charges against the law school’s operating procedures had merit and that he and some of the other professors should pursue the complaint. 55. In that same Labor Day phone call, Safranek also told Plaintiff Shirvell that he had spoken to Defendant Ondejko about the obstruction of justice allegations. Safranek only related to Plaintiff Shirvell that Defendant Ondejko informed Safranek that Fr. Orsi had called Defendant Ondejko into his office while Defendant Ondejko had been a student at the law school in the fall of 2005 and that it was Fr. Orsi who had asked Defendant Ondejko if he could wipe a computer hardrive clean for him. 56. In October 2007, Safranek and two other former Ave Maria School of Law professors (Philip Pucillo and Edward Lyons) retained Deborah Gordon, a high-profile employment-rights attorney, who filed a wrongful termination lawsuit on behalf of the former professors. Gordon is also a well-known Democratic Party activist and fundraiser, and has hosted high-price

15

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 16 of 79

Pg ID 16

fundraisers at her lavish Birmingham, Michigan mansion. In addition, Gordon is obsessed with obtaining media coverage. 57. In their lawsuit (hereafter referred to as the “Ave Maria lawsuit,”) the former Ave Maria law professors alleged, among other things, that they were fired for reporting or attempting to report to law enforcement agencies, including the Department, possible criminal obstruction of justice by the law school and some of its employees, including Fr. Orsi. 58. In October 2007, Defendant Ondejko was featured on the front cover of the Department’s internal newsletter, which was known as “AG Briefs.” In the front-cover story, Defendant Cox praised Defendant Ondejko for setting-up a sting that resulted in a sexual predator’s arrest, while Defendant Ondejko was on break from a training session in Las Vegas. 59. At the end of 2007, Americans United for Life published a white paper that was co-authored by Plaintiff Shirvell, entitled, “Michigan Law and the Scales of Justice: Life in the Balance.” 60. Also, at or about the end of 2007, Sandler left his position at the Department as Director of External Affairs, which he had resumed following Defendant Cox’s re-election. Sandler confided in Plaintiff Shirvell that Sandler left because Defendant Cox was “being a jerk about a

16

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 17 of 79

Pg ID 17

lot of things.” Sandler eventually landed a political position in Washington, D.C. 2008-2009 61. In early 2008, Defendant Cox unofficially announced that the thenSolicitor General, Thomas Casey, was going to retire later in the year and that Appellate Division Chief Restuccia would be officially named as Casey’s replacement at a later date. In the meantime, at Defendant Isaacs’ urging, Defendant Cox named Joel McGormley, an assistant attorney general with no previous supervisory experience, as the Appellate Division Chief in-waiting. McGormley had not previously served in the Appellate Division. 62. On June 4, 2008, Gordon deposed Fr. Orsi as part of the Ave Maria lawsuit. At the time of Fr. Orsi’s videotaped deposition, Gordon was clearly aware of Defendant Ondejko’s role in Orsi’s attempted efforts to wipe child pornography off the hardrive of a computer belonging to a fellow priest (Fr. Bill Thomas – who allegedly died in Germany in July 2007 and was supposedly buried there). 63. Moreover, Gordon learned that, at the time that Defendant Ondejko had the conversation with Fr. Orsi in 2005, Fr. Thomas was in fact the subject of a criminal investigation due to the allegations of child pornography on Fr. 17

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 18 of 79

Pg ID 18

Thomas’ computer and for possibly engaging in inappropriate conduct with teenage boys. Gordon also learned that the computer hardrive belonging to Fr. Thomas was actually tampered with and/or replaced altogether such that criminal charges could not be brought against Fr. Thomas. 64. During his June 4, 2008 deposition, Fr. Orsi denied calling Defendant Ondejko into his office in fall 2005. 65. Following Fr. Orsi’s deposition, Gordon called Defendant Ondejko and pressured him to give a deposition in order to contradict Fr. Orsi’s testimony. 66. On June 30, 2008, Gordon deposed Defendant Ondejko at her Bloomfield Hills office. Defendant Ondejko did not have any counsel present and none of Gordon’s clients attended the deposition. 67. During Defendant Ondejko’s Ave Maria lawsuit deposition, Gordon specifically learned that Defendant Ondejko, a criminal investigator employed by the Department, who at the relevant time was primarily involved in child porn/chat/predator cases, had a discussion with Fr. Orsi, in which Defendant Ondejko learned that one of Orsi’s priest friends maybe accessing child pornography via the Internet. Nonetheless, Gordon learned that Defendant Ondejko gave Fr. Orsi a virtual-how-to lesson in 18

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 19 of 79

Pg ID 19

destroying forensic evidence. And then – most extraordinarily – offered to take home the computer hardrive in question (a.k.a. potential evidence of criminal wrongdoing) in order to “take a look at it” on his own time and not “in an official capacity for the Attorney General’s office,” as an apparent favor to Fr. Orsi. 68. Gordon further learned that Defendant Ondejko never reported this conversation with Fr. Orsi to anyone at the Department or any other law enforcement agency despite knowing that the priest in question may have been engaging in serious criminal wrongdoing. 69. In July 2008, Solicitor General Casey retired and Restuccia officially replaced him, and McGormley officially replaced Restuccia as Chief of the Appellate Division. However, as Solicitor General, Restuccia was McGormley’s immediate supervisor. 70. In August 2008, Plaintiff Shirvell voluntarily ended his weekly pro-life RightMichigan.com blog column. 71. On Sunday, October 5, 2008, Plaintiff Shirvell attended an annual peaceful pro-life demonstration, known as Life Chain, in East Lansing, Michigan. 72. At the same Life Chain demonstration, Michigan State University (hereafter “MSU”) student Ryan Secord, a pro-abortion rights supporter, showed-up by himself with a distasteful sign attacking Christian believers 19

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 20 of 79

Pg ID 20

for their religion. Secord assaulted a peaceful pro-life demonstrator at the event and misrepresented, and then abused, his position as a reporter with the Capital News Service, an internship program sponsored by the MSU School of Journalism. 73. Plaintiff Shirvell subsequently reported Secord’s abhorrent conduct to the MSU School of Journalism. 74. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff Shirvell, the Director of the MSU School of Journalism, Jane Briggs-Bunting, subsequently removed Secord from his Capital News Service internship and then later expelled Secord from the MSU School of Journalism. Secord’s behavior on October 5, 2008 was part of a long-pattern of misconduct in which he had engaged. 75. Briggs-Bunting’s decision to expel Secord from the School of Journalism was opposed by several School of Journalism professors as well as several pro-abortion rights and pro-homosexual rights leaders, such as then-state Rep. Alma Wheeler-Smith and Sean Kosofsky, the former director of the Triangle Foundation of Michigan and the then-director of the North Carolina Abortion Rights Action League. Wheeler-Smith and Kosofsky both wrote lengthy letters in support of Secord and viciously attacked Plaintiff Shirvell by name with outrageous and disgusting smears.

20

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 21 of 79

Pg ID 21

76. By the end of 2008, Laura Moody was named First Assistant of the Appellate Division and Brad Beaver was named as the Habeas Section Head. Thus, from this point forward, Plaintiff Shirvell’s immediate supervisor was Beaver, who reported to Moody, who reported to McGormley, who reported to Restuccia, who reported to Defendants Isaacs and Cox. 77. Throughout 2007, 2008, and 2009 Plaintiff Shirvell received excellent evaluations from his supervisors and they considered Plaintiff Shirvell a model employee. 78. At the end of 2008, Sandler returned from Washington, D.C. and resumed his role at the Department as Director of External Affairs. 79. In late May 2009, Defendant Cox officially announced his intention to seek the Republican nomination for Governor in 2010, since he was termlimited as state Attorney General. 80. In early July 2009, Sandler left his position at the Department and officially became the campaign manager for Cox’s 2010 gubernatorial run. 81. Also in or about July 2009, Defendant Cox was passing-by Plaintiff Shirvell’s office on the fourth floor of the Department’s Lansing headquarters. Plaintiff Shirvell had his door open and was working. At first, Defendant Cox passed-by, but then came back to Plaintiff Shirvell’s 21

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 22 of 79

Pg ID 22

office. Defendant Cox then took a seat and closed the door. Plaintiff Shirvell and Defendant Cox made “small talk.” Defendant Cox brought-up his gubernatorial campaign and specifically encouraged Plaintiff Shirvell to “volunteer” his efforts in any way he could. Throughout this conversation, Defendant Cox exuberated with confidence that he would trounce any and all Republican rivals in the primary scheduled for early August 2010. 82. Also in July 2009, a couple of months after expelling MSU student Secord, Briggs-Bunting was asked by a new superior to resign as Director of the School of Journalism. Briggs-Bunting had previously served as the director of the school for the past six years. 83. Briggs-Bunting, who was very popular with the School of Journalism’s alumni, refused to resign and instead retained high-profile attorney Deborah Gordon to represent her in negotiations with the MSU administration – and to represent her in the media. 84. Gordon subsequently learned of Briggs-Bunting’s decision to expel Ryan Secord from the MSU School of Journalism and the multiple, welldocumented bases for it. At the same time, Gordon also learned of Plaintiff Shirvell’s limited connection to the incident.

22

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 23 of 79

Pg ID 23

85. In or around July 2009, former Ave Maria professors Pucillo and Lyons settled out of court with the defendants in the Ave Maria lawsuit. 86. In or around October 2009, former Ave Maria professor Safranek settled out of court with the defendants in the Ave Maria lawsuit. 87. In the fall of 2009, Defendant Ondejko made two large financial contributions to Defendant Cox’s gubernatorial campaign in less than a month. Upon information and belief, these are the only campaign contributions that Defendant Ondejko has ever made to any political candidate. 88. Throughout 2009, and at Sandler’s direction, Plaintiff Shirvell continued to do various political tasks for Defendant Cox in support of Defendant Cox’s gubernatorial campaign, such as attending political events, walking in holiday parades, writing letters to supporters, promoting Defendant Cox constantly via Facebook and e-mail, providing names and contact info of potential pro-life volunteers to the campaign, researching and digging-up dirt on opposing candidates such as Rick Snyder, circulating petitions to get Defendant Cox on the primary ballot, forming and moderating the Facebook group, “Pro-Lifers Supporting Mike Cox for Governor of Michigan,” etc.

23

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 24 of 79

Pg ID 24

Early 2010 89. Throughout early 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell continued to work with Sandler and others on Defendant Cox’s campaign staff in support of Defendant Cox’s gubernatorial campaign. 90. On the evening of Wednesday, February 3, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell hosted a small campaign party at his apartment in Charlotte for Defendant Cox’s supporters. The party was one of several that took place throughout the state that night. Supporters were told to watch then-Governor Granholm’s annual State-of-the-State address on television, which was to be followed by Defendant Cox doing a webcast criticizing Granholm. Unfortunately, no supporters showed-up to Plaintiff Shirvell’s campaign party. When Plaintiff Shirvell informed the campaign that no one showed-up, Plaintiff Shirvell was instructed to “make it look like a party” (e.g. by throwing coats across the couch), take a picture, and then upload the photo to Facebook. 91. On Saturday, February 6, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell travelled to Southfield, Michigan to attend Defendant Cox’s first mass indoor political rally. Plaintiff Shirvell handed-out literature and wore a political t-shirt in support of Defendant Cox. During the rally, Defendant Cox came-up to Plaintiff Shirvell, thanked him for his efforts, and shook his hand. 24

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 25 of 79

Pg ID 25

92. On Friday, February 12, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell was asked by one of Defendant Cox’s assistants to help prep Defendant Cox for an expected question and answer session on pro-life issues that Defendant Cox would be doing at a large evangelical church in Metro-Detroit on Sunday, February 14, 2010. Plaintiff Shirvell expressed concern that he was being asked to do political work on state time, but was told that it was alright to do because Defendant Cox was supposedly doing the church appearance as state Attorney General – and not as a candidate for governor. Plaintiff Shirvell then completed the task on state time, but utilized his personal, non-government e-mail account, as he was instructed to do. 93. On March 12, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell attended Defendant Cox’s annu al St. Patrick’s Day fundraiser. Plaintiff Shirvell received a complimentary admission. At the fundraiser, Defendant Schuette was a special guest of honor. Defendant Cox had earlier endorsed Defendant Schuette as his successor. Defendant Schuette was locked in a heated race for the Republican nomination against then-State Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop. 94. On April 19, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell received a personal e-mail from Defendant Cox’s campaign press secretary, who was also a former Department employee, inquiring whether Plaintiff Shirvell would help with 25

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 26 of 79

Pg ID 26

rapidly responding to criticism of Defendant Cox on the Internet. The email read in part, “If I sent you links and messaging each day would you be willing to spend 5 minutes clicking the links and leaving comments? This would be pro-Mike stuff and some oppo stuff, too. Could really use your help and that extra voice. Could post as yourself or under an alias. Not picky.” The “Chris Armstrong Watch” Blog and Events Surrounding Plaintiff Shirvell’s November 8, 2010 Termination 95. On April 29, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell began a blog called “Chris Armstrong Watch” concerning the public role, character, and policy positions of Chris Armstrong, the self-described first openly homosexual student body president at the University of Michigan. 96. Armstrong had a lengthy history of pro-homosexual activism in the public arena as chair of the Michigan Student Assembly’s Lesbian-Gay-BisexualTransgender Commission and had routinely spoken out on matters of public concern, such as homosexual marriage, gender-neutral housing, gender-neutral bathrooms, and similar matters. 97. According to Armstrong’s own March 29, 2010 press release, Armstrong was “instrumental” in bringing to campus a very controversial homosexual

26

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 27 of 79

Pg ID 27

student conference, which included “workshops” featuring S & M bondage and sex toy demonstrations. 98. Armstrong routinely made news both on and off the University of Michigan campus and his activities were covered by the news media, including the Michigan Daily, the Detroit Free Press, U.S. News & World Report, etc. By the time that Plaintiff Shirvell began blogging about Armstrong, Armstrong had already attracted the criticism of many others, including the Christian legal foundation then-known as the Alliance Defense Fund as well as the University of Michigan Democrats. 99. The Alliance Defense Fund put out an alert about Armstrong on or about April 9, 2010 due to Armstrong’s crusade for so-called gender-neutral housing at the University. The University of Michigan Democrats put out a press release on or about April 19, 2010 condemning Armstrong for his decision to join Order of Angell, a notorious secret student society with a history of elitism and racism. More specifically, Order of Angell had a long history of targeting Native Americans for ridicule or worse. The University of Michigan Democrats were particularly upset with Armstrong because, prior to his election, he said he would not join that group.

27

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 28 of 79

Pg ID 28

100. Armstrong first came to the attention of Plaintiff Shirvell after Plaintiff Shirvell read an April 10, 2010 online Detroit Free Press article, entitled, “Gay student leader elected at U-M seeks activism.” 101. Plaintiff Shirvell wrote the “Chris Armstrong Watch” blog using the alia s “Concerned Michigan Alumnus” and in no way identified himself on the blog as an assistant attorney general employed by the Department. 102. Plaintiff Shirvell wrote all of the entries on the “Chris Armstrong Watch” blog from his personal laptop computer while at home during non-work hours. 103. On May 1, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell travelled to Ann Arbor to protest President Obama’s commencement speech at the University of Michigan. Plaintiff Shirvell protested with other members of Citizens for a Pro-life Society by holding up graphic signs of aborted babies outside Michigan stadium. A Detroit Free Press photographer took a picture of Plaintiff Shirvell as he protested. That picture was later posted online on the newspaper’s website and identified Plaintiff Shirvell by name. 104. On May 5 and 6, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell and Restuccia attended the annual judicial conference for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Columbus, Ohio. Plaintiff Shirvell and Restuccia (as Michigan Solicitor General) were the only representatives of the Department to attend. 28

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 29 of 79

Pg ID 29

105. While at the conference, Sandler contacted Plaintiff Shirvell and Restuccia via e-mail and asked for their help in prepping Defendant Cox for Defendant Cox’s interview with Right to Life of Michigan’s political action committee, which was to take place the following week. Plaintiff Shirvell subsequently provided the help requested. Right to Life of Michigan later gave Defendant Cox its sole endorsement in the 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary, which was a coveted prize. 106. On Saturday, May 8, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell travelled to Ann Arbor to protest outside of a pro-homosexual rights rally, at which Armstrong was one of the main speakers. Plaintiff Shirvell peacefully held-up a sign protesting Armstrong’s affiliation with Order of Angell. Plaintiff Shirvell did not approach or speak to Armstrong at any time. Plaintiff Shirvell was, however, assaulted by then-Washtenaw County Commissioner Jeff Irwin who tried to take away and destroy Plaintiff Shirvell’s sign. 107. Expelled MSU student Secord attended the May 8, 2010 pro-homosexual rights rally. Secord recognized Plaintiff Shirvell and shouted-out that Plaintiff Shirvell was an “assistant attorney general in Mike Cox’s office.” Secord then proceeded to take numerous pictures of Plaintiff Shirvell protesting Armstrong.

29

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 30 of 79

Pg ID 30

108. As early as mid-May 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell’s superiors at the Department knew about the “Chris Armstrong Watch” blog and its contents and that Plaintiff Shirvell was the author of the blog. These superiors included, but were not limited to, Defendant Isaacs, Restuccia, McGormley, and Ethics Officer Frank Monticello. 109. On Sunday, May 16, 2010, Restuccia and Defendant Isaacs received an email from a Ben Stewart, a member of the public, alerting them to the fact that Plaintiff Shirvell was running the “Chris Armstrong Watch” blog. This May 16th e-mail described in specific detail what was on the blog and relayed concerns about the blog’s contents. 110. On Monday, May 17, 2010, Restuccia met with Plaintiff Shirvell and alerted Plaintiff Shirvell to the fact that he and Defendant Isaacs had received the e-mail from Stewart. Restuccia then showed Plaintiff Shirvell a hard-copy of the e-mail. Restuccia told Plaintiff Shirvell not to worry about the e-mail. Restuccia represented that both he and Defendant Isaacs had looked at the blog. Restuccia further stated that he thought the blog was well-written. At the end of the meeting, Restuccia said that he and Defendant Isaacs agreed that Plaintiff Shirvell had a First Amendment right to blog.

30

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 31 of 79

Pg ID 31

111. At this time, Restuccia discussed the blog with Monticello, McGormley, and with Defendant Isaacs. Restuccia learned from Monticello that the Department had no policy that would prohibit its employees from blogging outside of work. As a result, neither Defendant Isaacs nor anyone else at the Department ordered Plaintiff Shirvell to take down the blog because Defendant Isaacs believed that doing so would clearly violate Plaintiff Shirvell’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech outside the work place as a public employee. 112. On Tuesday, May 18, 2010, reporter Jessica Carreras contacted the Mike Cox for Governor Campaign office seeking comment about Plaintiff Shirvell’s blog posts for a future article she was writing for the newspaper known as Between the Lines, a publication catering to Michigan’s homosexual community. 113. Campaign manager Sandler called Plaintiff Shirvell on May 18, 2010 and left a voicemail message at 5:06 p.m. on Plaintiff Shirvell’s personal cell phone, asking for Plaintiff Shirvell to call him back so that they could discuss the media inquiry further. When Plaintiff Shirvell got home from work at ~5:45 p.m., Plaintiff Shirvell called back Sandler at the campaign office number. However, one of Defendant Cox’s campaign staff members answered the phone, put Plaintiff Shirvell on hold, and then told 31

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 32 of 79

Pg ID 32

Plaintiff Shirvell that Sandler was unavailable at the moment as Defendant Cox had just walked into Sandler’s office. 114. About ten minutes later, Sandler called Plaintiff Shirvell back and they talked about the “Chris Armstrong Watch” blog at length (maybe 15-20 minutes). Sandler claimed that he had not heard of the blog before. Plaintiff Shirvell remarked that, on Friday, May 14, 2010, someone had posted a comment on the blog utilizing Sandler’s name. Sandler then asked about the contents of the comment. Plaintiff Shirvell told him that the remark chastised Plaintiff Shirvell for operating the blog and threatened that Plaintiff Shirvell would lose his job over the blog. Plaintiff Shirvell told Sandler that Plaintiff Shirvell knew it was not him, and for that reason, Plaintiff Shirvell decided to disable the comments section on the blog so that “people could not play games.” Plaintiff Shirvell and Sandler then speculated that it must have been a former Department employee who knew Sandler’s sometimes abrasive style of communication (especially when Sandler was angry). Plaintiff Shirvell and Sandler then laughed. Sandler told Plaintiff Shirvell that his “only rule” was that Plaintiff Shirvell not use foul language in the blog. 115. Sandler and Plaintiff Shirvell subsequently spoke on the phone several times between May 18th and the August 3, 2010 Republican gubernatorial 32

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 33 of 79

Pg ID 33

primary. Plaintiff Shirvell mainly gave Sandler political advice on certain campaign matters. 116. On Thursday, May 20, 2010, Between the Lines published Carreras’ article online and in print, entitled, “Update: ‘Laramie Project’ anti-gay heckler identified as Michigan Assistant Attorney General,” in which Plaintiff Shirvell was publicly identified as the author of the “Chris Armstrong Watch” blog. The article also described Plaintiff Shirvell’s public protesting of Armstrong and Armstrong’s affiliation with Order of Angell . 117. The same day that the Between the Lines article was published, May 20, 2010, Restuccia received an e-mail alerting him to the article. 118. On Friday, May 21, 2010, at approximately 5:00 p.m., Defendant Isaacs called Plaintiff Shirvell on his office phone. In her phone conversation, Defendant Isaacs said that other, more mainstream media outlets were beginning to inquire about the blog due to the May 20th Between the Lines article. Defendant Isaacs said she wanted to personally make sure that Plaintiff Shirvell was blogging on his own time outside of work. Plaintiff Shirvell assured Defendant Isaacs that he was blogging on his own time. Defendant Isaacs responded that she was satisfied and that the Department would respond to all further media inquiries by saying that Plaintiff Shirvell was blogging outside of work and that he had a right to do so. 33

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 34 of 79

Pg ID 34

119. Despite this media publicity, which Restuccia, Defendant Isaacs, and others at the Department had full knowledge of, the Defendants never ordered Plaintiff Shirvell to stop blogging and/or protesting with respect to Armstrong. Based upon the position taken by the Defendants, Plaintiff Shirvell continued to exercise his First Amendment rights outside of work. 120. On June 3, 2010, the Department issued Plaintiff Shirvell his annual work evaluation, in which he was rated “outstanding” overall. In particular, Plaintiff Shirvell received an “outstanding” rating in the category of professionalism and client relations because “Mr. Shirvell meets the Department’s very high standard for professional conduct.” This latest evaluation was consistent with all of Plaintiff Shirvell’s previous work evaluations. Plaintiff Shirvell was a model employee. 121. On July 7, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell read an online article about Assistant Attorney General James Farrell, entitled, “Mich. assistant AG ordered to pay $10,000 fine.” The article stated that Farrell had been fined $10,000 “for his lack of decorum during a trial in federal court in Ann Arbor.” The article further noted that Farrell’s conduct, in part, caused the federal judge to declare a mistrial in the case. The article concluded by stating, “In a court filing, the attorney general’s office says he’s [Farrell’s] getting supervision and training.” Plaintiff Shirvell subsequently asked Restuccia 34

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 35 of 79

Pg ID 35

about the incident and Restuccia told him that Defendant Isaacs had decided not to discipline Farrell over the incident, but instead to send Farrell to counseling for anger management. 122. On July 9-10, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell protested Armstrong and Armstrong’s affiliation with Order of Angell outside of the Necto nightclub in Ann Arbor. Armstrong was out of state at the time. Toward the end of Plaintiff Shirvell’s protest, Plaintiff Shirvell was assaulted by a group of Armstrong’s supporters who violently attacked Plaintiff Shirvell and ripped Plaintiff Shirvell’s protest sign to shreds. Plaintiff Shirvell was also spat at by one of Armstrong’s supporters. 123. On or about Sunday, July 11, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell went into work at the Department’s headquarters in Lansing in order to do put in some mandatory, but unpaid, overtime. In the elevator, Plaintiff Shirvell ran into Defendant Isaacs. Plaintiff Shirvell and Defendant Isaacs exchanged pleasantries, and Defendant Isaacs grumbled that Defendant Cox needed something done urgently and that is why she was coming to work on a Sunday afternoon. 124. On Saturday, July 17, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell spent several hours volunteering his time at Defendant Cox’s gubernatorial campaign headquarters in Livonia, where Plaintiff Shirvell made phone calls on 35

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 36 of 79

Pg ID 36

behalf of Defendant Cox as part of a small phone bank. After Plaintiff Shirvell finished, Sandler called Plaintiff Shirvell into his personal campaign office and showed Plaintiff Shirvell a draft negative television ad the campaign planned to run against Pete Hoekstra, one of Defendant Cox’s Republican primary opponents. Sandler asked Plaintiff Shirvell for input concerning the ad. 125. On Thursday, July 22, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell volunteered at a phone bank for Defendant Cox’s gubernatorial campaign during Plaintiff Shirvell’s lunch hour, from 12:00 – 1:00 p.m., at the Boji Tower in Lansing. Plaintiff Shirvell again volunteered at the phone bank after work for several hours. Also, based on requests made by some of Defendant Cox’s campaign staffers, some of whom doubled as state employees, Plaintiff Shirvell successfully recruited other assistant attorneys general in the Department to volunteer their time at Defendant Cox’s Lansing phone bank. 126. On Saturday, July 24, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell spent the day in Ann Arbor handing out fliers advertising his “Chris Armstrong Watch” blog at the Ann Arbor Art Fair and in the student neighborhoods. 127. On Tuesday, July 27, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell again volunteered his time at a phone bank for Defendant Cox’s gubernatorial campaign during Plaintiff Shirvell’s lunch hour, from 12:00 – 1:00 p.m., at the Boji Tower in 36

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 37 of 79

Pg ID 37

Lansing, and then again for several hours after work. Under pressure from the campaign, Plaintiff Shirvell again successfully recruited other state employees to join him in volunteering. 128. On Wednesday, July 28, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell and Restuccia took vacation time to attend a morning press conference that Defendant Cox was holding at the Michigan Chamber of Commerce in Lansing. Plaintiff Shirvell and Restuccia were put under pressure to attend by one of Defendant Cox’s campaign staffers. 129. On Saturday, July 31, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell again made the trip to Defendant Cox’s campaign headquarters in Livonia to work many hours at another phone bank. 130. On Sunday, August 1, 2010, at the behest of Defendant Cox’s gubernatorial campaign, Plaintiff Shirvell placed fliers on cars in a parking lot of a major evangelical Christian church in the Lansing-area while services were taking place. The fliers promoted Defendant Cox’s pro-life record. Defendant Cox’s campaign staff lead Plaintiff Shirvell to believe that the campaign had secured the church’s prior permission, when, in fact, it had not done so. As a result, Plaintiff Shirvell was almost arrested when the church’s head of security and an Eaton County Sherriff’s Deputy confronted him. The church’s security then forced Plaintiff Shirvell to 37

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 38 of 79

Pg ID 38

remove all the pro-life fliers. When Plaintiff Shirvell informed the campaign staffer responsible for the mishap, Plaintiff Shirvell was told not to worry and that Defendant Cox appreciated his efforts. Plaintiff Shirvell then took the fliers and spent several hours distributing them to houses in his then-home community of Charlotte. 131. On Tuesday, August 3, 2010, which was the day of the gubernatorial primary election, Plaintiff Shirvell took a vacation day in order to volunteer at Defendant Cox’s gubernatorial campaign headquarters. Plaintiff Shirvell spent the entire day with other volunteers making hundreds of get-out-the-vote phone calls on behalf of Defendant Cox. Defendant Cameron and Restuccia also spent several hours working the phones. At one point during the day, Defendant Cox came over to Plaintiff Shirvell and personally thanked him for all of Plaintiff Shirvell’s efforts in support of Defendant Cox’s gubernatorial run. 132. At Defendant Cox’s primary election night party, only a very small handful of state employees attended. Plaintiff Shirvell, Restuccia, and Defendants Isaacs and Cameron were all in attendance. At the beginning of the party, Defendant Cox came into the main room with his wife, followed by many television cameras. For the cameras, Defendant Cox shook hands with several supporters, including Plaintiff Shirvell’s. 38

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 39 of 79

Pg ID 39

Throughout the night, Plaintiff Shirvell conversed with Restuccia and Defendant Cameron. Plaintiff Shirvell also spoke to Sandler several times. Sandler remained steadfast in his belief that Defendant Cox would win. 133. By ~11:00 p.m. on the night of August 3, 2010, it became clear that Defendant Cox was going to lose the primary election in a landslide, and, in fact, he ended-up in third place. When Defendant Cox finally made his concession speech, Plaintiff Shirvell observed that Sandler and Defendants Isaacs and Cameron appeared very apprehensive and that Defendant Isaacs was crying. 134. On Thursday, August 5, 2010, Appellate Division Chief McGormley called Plaintiff Shirvell’s personal cell phone and left a voicemail message for Plaintiff Shirvell at 9:12 p.m. in order to give Plaintiff Shirvell an assignment concerning the August 4, 2010 decision in Perry v Schwarzenegger, 704 F Supp 2d 921 (ND Cal 2010), which overturned California’s 2008 constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage. 135. In his voicemail, McGormley stated that he had just gotten off the phone with Restuccia who had just gotten off the phone with Defendant Cox. McGormley told Plaintiff Shirvell what the assignment was and told Plaintiff Shirvell to come see him “first thing in the morning.” 39

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 40 of 79

Pg ID 40

McGormley also stated that he thought it was a “good thing” for Plaintiff Shirvell to do the assignment, as Restuccia had left it in his court to decide who in the Appellate Division would get the task. McGormley also asked Plaintiff Shirvell to work on the assignment over the upcoming weekend so that the memo would be ready for Defendant Cox on Monday, August 9, 2010. McGormley concluded his message by stating that he thought that this issue was something Plaintiff Shirvell wanted to be involved with “on the ground level.” 136. The next morning, on Friday, August 6, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell went to see McGormley about the assignment, as instructed. McGormley then emailed Restuccia and stated, “Andrew is on the task for the CA marriage issue. Laura [Moody] and I will review his draft. ETA of final first draft of memo: Monday a.m. Andrew is very excited about it, and I have full confidence in him.” 137. Restuccia then responded to McGormley and simply said, “Terrific!” 138. About an hour later, McGormley e-mailed Restuccia again to tell him that he had spoken to Defendant Isaacs about the project and said that Defendant Isaacs confirmed that it was a joint effort by Restuccia, McGormley, Moody, and Plaintiff Shirvell.

40

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 41 of 79

Pg ID 41

139. On August 9, 2010, McGormley wrote to Defendant Cox, praising Plaintiff Shirvell’s work summarizing the August 4, 2010 decision in Perry. 140. Plaintiff Shirvell subsequently met with McGormley and Restuccia during the week of August 9, 2010. At that meeting they informed Plaintiff Shirvell that he would also be helping them out on any appellate amicus brief that the Department would file in the Perry case. McGormley and Restuccia further represented that, if Michigan became one of the leading amici in the Perry case then there was a possibility that Plaintiff Shirvell could end-up having significant input on a case that was likely to go before the U.S. Supreme Court. 141. On or about the week of August 9, 2010, Beaver, Plaintiff Shirvell’s immediate supervisor, gave his two-week notice that he would be leaving the Department at the end of the month to take a job as a staff attorney at the U.S. federal courthouse in Detroit. Beaver, an Ann Arbor resident, had spent his entire career at the Department. The Department subsequently announced it would accept applications for Beaver’s position. Assistant Attorney General Laura Cook, who also worked in the Appellate Division, applied for Beaver’s job. 142. On Wednesday, August 18, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell conducted an interview with Detroit WXYZ-Channel 7 reporter Ross Jones concerning Plaintiff 41

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 42 of 79

Pg ID 42

Shirvell’s “Chris Armstrong Watch” blog, after Ross Jones had repeatedly requested an interview. Plaintiff Shirvell conducted the taped interview from his home and agreed to do the interview on the condition that he would not be asked questions about his employment. 143. However, unbeknownst to Plaintiff Shirvell at the time, the reporter was the brother of former Department employee Adam Jones, who was disgruntled and had a long-standing personal vendetta against Defendant Cox. Sandler had once referred to Adam Jones as “prissy.” On another occasion Sandler and another long-time aide to Defendant Cox had joked about having accidently met Adam Jones’s homosexual lover at some political function. 144. On Thursday, August 19, 2010, Andy Phelps, a Department employee who had served as Sandler’s personal assistant for many years, sent Plaintiff Shirvell an e-mail asking if Plaintiff Shirvell would be interested in helping out Defendant Schuette at the upcoming Michigan Republican Party convention on Saturday, August 28, 2010. Plaintiff Shirvell replied shortly thereafter, stating simply, “No.” A few minutes later, Phelps then wrote back to Plaintiff Shirvell the following message, “Ha, that was pretty clear. Not a Schuette fan?” Plaintiff Shirvell did not respond further. Instead, Phelps sent Plaintiff Shirvell another e-mail a few minutes later stating, 42

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 43 of 79

Pg ID 43

“btw, loved your acting in the appellate video.” Andy Phelps’ brother, Tim Phelps, served as the political director for Defendant Cox’s gubernatorial campaign. 145. On the morning of Friday, August 20, 2010, Sandler, who had just been rehired by the Department in a civil service attorney position, called Plaintiff Shirvell and informed him that one of Sandler’s “friends” at WXYZ-Channel 7 told Sandler that the station was doing a story about Plaintiff Shirvell’s “Chris Armstrong Watch” blog. Sandler was very upset on the phone and insisted that Plaintiff Shirvell should have contacted the Department’s office of communications prior to agreeing to the interview. Sandler ended the phone call by stating that he was “finished” with Plaintiff Shirvell and that Plaintiff Shirvell was on his own. That was the last time that Plaintiff Shirvell had any communications with Sandler. 146. Several hours later, during the afternoon of August 20, 2010, Restuccia and Moody came to Plaintiff Shirvell’s office and said that they had been asked by Defendant Isaacs to initiate an investigation concerning the WXYZ interview because Defendant Isaacs believed that Plaintiff Shirvell was in violation of the Department’s media contacts policy. During this meeting, Plaintiff Shirvell expressed that he did not feel as though he had violated the policy because the interview concerned his non-work-related 43

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 44 of 79

Pg ID 44

political activities and, moreover, he had refused to answer any questions concerning his employment with the Department after Ross Jones began asking such questions. 147. On Tuesday, August 24, 2010, Beaver sent out an unprecedented disparaging e-mail about Plaintiff Shirvell while Plaintiff Shirvell was driving back from a habeas bond hearing in Detroit earlier that day. Beaver sent the disparaging e-mail to all of Plaintiff Shirvell’s colleagues in the Appellate Division, reprimanding Plaintiff Shirvell for leaving the federal courthouse before the habeas prisoner was physically released from custody (even though this was not part of the division’s protocols). 148. Upon arriving back at his office in Lansing and opening-up his e-mail, Plaintiff Shirvell became perplexed as to why Beaver had sent out such an unprecedented and inappropriate e-mail to all of the attorneys in the Appellate Division. As a result, Plaintiff Shirvell went to go see Beaver in his office. Plaintiff Shirvell and Beaver then got into a heated argument, which ended when Plaintiff Shirvell left Beaver’s office and returned to his own office where he continued working until the end of the day. 149. On Thursday, August 26, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell received a notice from Defendant Bramble that he had scheduled a disciplinary conference to discuss Plaintiff Shirvell’s conduct on August 24th. The notice indicated 44

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 45 of 79

Pg ID 45

that potential discipline ranged from a written reprimand to an unpaid suspension. The disciplinary conference was scheduled for August 31, 2010. 150. On Friday, August 27, 2010, Beaver left the Department for his new job at the federal courthouse in Detroit. 151. On Saturday, August 28, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell attended the Michigan Republican Convention in East Lansing as an elected delegate to the convention. While waiting to get into the convention hall, Plaintiff Shirvell was approached by Andy Phelps, who inquired about Plaintiff Shirvell’s August 24th argument with Beaver. Also, just prior to entering the convention hall, Plaintiff Shirvell met Defendant Schuette, who asked for Plaintiff Shirvell’s vote, since only elected convention delegates could vote to nominate a candidate for state Attorney General. 152. At the convention, Plaintiff Shirvell saw Sandler staring at him several times. After voting, Plaintiff Shirvell was approached by Shannon Price, one of Defendant Cox’s old friends, who was working on Defendant Schuette’s attorney general campaign. Price asked Plaintiff Shirvell who he had voted for attorney general: Defendant Schuette or Bishop. Plaintiff Shirvell candidly informed Price that he had voted for neither because Plaintiff Shirvell did not want to pick his next boss. 45

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 46 of 79

Pg ID 46

153. Although Defendant Schuette had been favored to win since he was overwhelmingly backed by the Michigan Republican Party establishment, the race was much closer than expected and Defendant Schuette won the nomination by barely one hundred (100) votes or so due to significant Tea Party support for his opponent, Bishop. 154. Price went on to serve in Defendant Schuette’s administration at the Department as a paid employee. In 2012, Price was elected to a position on the Wayne County Commission with Defendant Schuette’s help. 155. Upon information and belief, word eventually reached both Defendants Cox and Schuette that Plaintiff Shirvell had not volunteered on behalf of Defendant Schuette at the convention and that Plaintiff Shirvell did not cast a vote for Defendant Schuette. 156. On Tuesday, August 31, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell’s disciplinary conference took place. In attendance were Defendant Bramble, Restuccia, and McGormley. Defendant Bramble did not present Plaintiff Shirvell with any so-called witness statements. At the end of the conference, after Plaintiff Shirvell had provided his statement, Defendant Bramble asked Plaintiff Shirvell to wait outside the conference room for at least a halfhour. When Defendant Bramble called Plaintiff Shirvell back in the conference room, Defendant Bramble said that he, Restuccia, and 46

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 47 of 79

Pg ID 47

McGormley had spoken at length with Defendant Isaacs and that my “punishment” was a two-and-half (2 & ½) day suspension, effective August 31, 2010. Plaintiff Shirvell was then asked to immediately leave and go home. 157. Upon information and belief, other assistant attorneys general (including one in the Appellate Division) had gotten into heated arguments with their supervisors, in which foul language was used, but were not disciplined. 158. On Friday, September 3, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell returned to work after serving his unpaid suspension. McGormley and Restuccia met with Plaintiff Shirvell and advised him that it would be better for him in the long run not to grieve the suspension within the Civil Service system, as was his right. 159. On or about Saturday, September 4, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell learned through a Michigan Daily article that Armstrong and several University of Michigan administrators had sent out an e-mail earlier in the week to all students reminding them of what’s expected of them during game day, especially when it came to hosting off-campus parties. Also, on or about September 4, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell learned that Armstrong and his roommates would be hosting a so-called “GAE Rush” party at their offcampus fraternity-style house later that night. 47

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 48 of 79

Pg ID 48

160. On September 4, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell was in Ann Arbor and observed, from a sidewalk, wrong-doing going on at Armstrong’s massive party, which had spilled-over onto the front lawn. Plaintiff Shirvell called the Ann Arbor police to report the unlawful activity. The Ann Arbor police arrived, raided the party, and told everyone to leave. Per his First Amendment rights, Plaintiff Shirvell videotaped the police activity and took photographs of it from a sidewalk – and then blogged about it on the “Chris Armstrong Watch” blog. 161. On Labor Day, September 6, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell protested against Armstrong at several different venues both on and off the University of Michigan’s campus, including on a sidewalk in front of Armstrong’s fraternity-style house, per Plaintiff Shirvell’s First Amendment rights. Plaintiff Shirvell’s protest sign again drew attention to Armstrong’s membership in the controversial group, Order of Angell. While protesting, Plaintiff Shirvell secured, via e-mail, the permission of the Michigan Student Assembly Executive Board to come and address the Assembly the following night. Armstrong personally approved of Plaintiff Shirvell’s request. 162. On Tuesday, September 7, 2010, after work hours, Plaintiff Shirvell spoke before the entire Michigan Student Assembly at its weekly public meeting 48

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 49 of 79

Pg ID 49

and asked for that body to remove Armstrong as president due to Armstrong’s continued membership in Order of Angell. All members of the public were allowed to speak before the Assembly, provided that they sought permission ahead of time, which Plaintiff Shirvell did. 163. On Monday, September 13, 2010, Armstrong filed a meritless request for a personal protection order (PPO) against Plaintiff Shirvell with the Washtenaw County Circuit Court. Armstrong filed his request even though he had never had any face-to-face conversation or direct communication with Plaintiff Shirvell, i.e. Armstrong had never received an e-mail, text message, phone call, or voicemail from Plaintiff Shirvell. All that Plaintiff Shirvell did was criticize Armstrong through blog posts, public protests, and at the September 7th Michigan Student Assembly meeting, per Plaintiff Shirvell’s First Amendment rights. At the time, Plaintiff Shirvell was completely unaware that Armstrong had filed his meritless PPO request. 164. On the same day that Armstrong filed his PPO request, Washtenaw County Circuit Court Judge Nancy C. Francis, the sister of then-state Rep. Alma Wheeler-Smith, denied Armstrong’s request for an ex parte issuance. 165. On Tuesday, September 14, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell took a partial-vacation day. Plaintiff Shirvell again protested Armstrong’s membership in Order 49

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 50 of 79

Pg ID 50

of Angell with a sign at a campus event and in front of Armstrong’s fraternity-style home. Plaintiff Shirvell also planned on attending that night’s weekly Michigan Student Assembly meeting, which was open to the general public. In order to attend, members of the public did not need to secure prior permission. 166. Armstrong demanded that the University of Michigan Department of Public Safety issue a “trespass warning” to Plaintiff Shirvell in order to prohibit Plaintiff Shirvell from entering campus and exercising his First Amendment rights to protest Armstrong and Armstrong’s agenda. That same day, the Department of Public Safety acquiesced to Armstrong’s demand and barred Plaintiff Shirvell from campus. 167. On Wednesday, September 15, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell’s interview with WXYZ-Channel 7 reporter Ross Jones aired during the eleven o’clock news – almost a month after Plaintiff Shirvell had taped the interview. Ross Jones’ other brother, Tyler Jones, was a student reporter for the Michigan Daily, which had run a story about the “Chris Armstrong Watch” blog the day before. 168. On Thursday, September 16, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell received a request from CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees show for an interview regarding the “Chris Armstrong Watch” blog and Plaintiff Shirvell’s 50

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 51 of 79

Pg ID 51

campaign to remove Armstrong as student body president at the University of Michigan due to Armstrong’s affiliation with Order of Angell. Plaintiff Shirvell was now aware that he needed prior permission before accepting such interview requests, so Plaintiff Shirvell immediately contacted his supervisors and Defendant Bramble and asked for permission to conduct the interview with Cooper. 169. Restuccia initially barred Plaintiff Shirvell from doing the interview and Plaintiff Shirvell unequivocally accepted Restuccia’s order. However, Restuccia’s order was countermanded by Defendant Cox just a few hours later, after Restuccia called Defendant Cox to tell him about the interview request. Defendant Cox told Restuccia that Plaintiff Shirvell had a First Amendment right to give the interview. As a result, Restuccia called Plaintiff Shirvell later on September 16th and told him that he could do the interview with Cooper. Restuccia has since admitted that, he “had no authority as supervisor to limit his [Plaintiff Shirvell’s] First Amendment right to engage in activity outside the office.” 170. Sometime in or about mid-September 2010, the Department announced that Beaver’s supervisory position would be filled by John Pallas, an attorney who had never worked for the Department before. Thus, Assistant Attorney General Cook did not get the position. 51

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 52 of 79

Pg ID 52

171. After the Department made the announcement about Pallas, Cook came to see Plaintiff Shirvell in his office. With the door closed, Cook came to see how Plaintiff Shirvell was doing. Cook divulged that she had been fired from her previous job after she had told the managing female partner to shove a pencil up her ass. 172. During this conversation, Cook further related that she could not find a legal job afterwards and was forced to work as a vacuum sales person in order to make ends meet for over a year until then-Attorney General Granholm hired her. Cook then admitted that the disparaging e-mail sent by Beaver on August 24th to all of Plaintiff Shirvell’s colleagues was meant to provoke Plaintiff Shirvell. Although the deadline to grieve Plaintiff Shirvell’s unpaid suspension had passed, Cook further related that she would deny that she ever told Plaintiff Shirvell anything, should Plaintiff Shirvell grieve the suspension and force her to testify. Cook did not disclose that she had, in fact, submitted a “witness statement” against Plaintiff Shirvell regarding the August 24th argument. 173. While Cook was meeting with Plaintiff Shirvell, McGormley knocked on the door and interrupted the conversation. McGormley glared at Cook and Cook left shortly thereafter.

52

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 53 of 79

Pg ID 53

174. While Plaintiff Shirvell was mulling over the Anderson Cooper interview offer, Defendant Bramble convened another disciplinary conference, which took place on Monday, September 20, 2010. Defendant Bramble, Restuccia, and McGormley attended this conference along with Plaintiff Shirvell. At the end of this conference, Plaintiff Shirvell was issued a formal letter of reprimand on September 20, 2010 regarding the WXYZChannel 7 interview for failing to inform the Department about the interview prior to accepting the request. The letter had already been written by Restuccia and the conference was just a formality. At the end of the conference, Defendant Bramble snidely remarked to Plaintiff Shirvell that Plaintiff Shirvell was a “valued employee of the Department.” 175. Upon information and belief, other Department employees conducted media interviews about non-work-related matters and were never disciplined. 176. On Thursday, September 23, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell made what would turn out to be his final blog entry on the “Chris Armstrong Watch” blog. 177. Plaintiff Shirvell continued to keep Defendant Bramble and Plaintiff Shirvell’s supervisors informed as to his contacts with Anderson Cooper’s producers.

53

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 54 of 79

Pg ID 54

178. Plaintiff Shirvell ultimately agreed to do an interview with Cooper on the condition that the interview be “limited to the Chris Armstrong Watch blog and basically free expression on the Internet” and that there would be no questions concerning his employment. At around the same time, Plaintiff Shirvell was also offered an opportunity to appear on the Daily Show and accepted that offer based on the same conditions – and again with the Department’s permission. 179. On Tuesday, September 28, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell taped an interview with Anderson Cooper, which aired that night on CNN. Plaintiff Shirvell taped the interview during the early evening from his then-apartment in Charlotte. Anderson Cooper did not abide by the agreement that Plaintiff Shirvell had made with the show’s producers concerning questions about Plaintiff Shirvell’s employment. Nevertheless, Plaintiff Shirvell refused to answer any of Cooper’s questions related to Plaintiff Shirvell’s employment with the Department, per the Department’s policies. 180. At the time of the interview, Cooper was a closeted homosexual, meaning Cooper kept his homosexuality hidden from the public, and Plaintiff Shirvell was unaware that Cooper was a homosexual. In July 2012, Cooper disclosed that he had been living a homosexual lifestyle for the vast majority of his life. 54

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 55 of 79

Pg ID 55

181. On Tuesday, September 29, 2010, several of Plaintiff Shirvell’s co workers expressed support for Plaintiff Shirvell’s First Amendment rights. A supervisor in the Department’s Corrections Division (which shared the same floor as the Appellate Division) came to see Plaintiff Shirvell in his office and told Plaintiff Shirvell that he had viewed the CNN interview and believed that Plaintiff Shirvell was within his First Amendment rights and was glad that Plaintiff Shirvell was standing-up for those rights as a public employee. 182. Also on Tuesday, September 29, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell taped an interview with a representative from the Daily Show at the Radisson Hotel in Lansing after work. 183. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff Shirvell at the time, Defendant Cox also taped an interview with Cooper on September 29, 2010. Defendant Cox’s interview subsequently aired on Cooper’s CNN program that very night. 184. In Defendant Cox’s interview, Defendant Cox explicitly recognized that Plaintiff Shirvell’s blog and conduct outside of the office were protected by the First Amendment and were not impacting Plaintiff Shirvell’s work as an assistant attorney general. Specifically, when Cooper asked Defendant Cox why Plaintiff Shirvell was still employed with the Department, Defendant Cox responded, “Well, for a number of reasons. 55

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 56 of 79

Pg ID 56

Here in America, we have this thing called the First Amendment, which allows people to express what they think and – and – and engage in political and social speech.” 185. Defendant Cox was well-briefed and prepared for the interview. Defendant Cox discussed a specific U.S. Supreme Court case (U.S. v. Treasury Employees) in support of his position that Plaintiff Shirvell’s blog and conduct were protected by the First Amendment. 186. During his interview, Defendant Cox further explained, “Mr. Shirvell is sort of a front-line grunt assistant prosecutor in my office. He – he does satisfactory work. And off-hours, he's free to engage, under both our civil service rules, Michigan Supreme Court rulings, and the United States Supreme Court rule – interestingly enough, by – Justice Stevens wrote the opinion – to engage in free speech.” 187. Moreover, when Cooper specifically asked Defendant Cox whether Plaintiff Shirvell’s conduct constituted “conduct unbecoming a state employee,” Defendant Cox responded that “[c]onduct unbecoming is one of those empty-vessel statements. What it means has never really been fleshed out.” Defendant Cox also plainly stated that Plaintiff Shirvell’s blogging was not impacting the mission of the Department, nor was it

56

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 57 of 79

Pg ID 57

impacting Plaintiff Shirvell’s work as an assistant attorney general, nor was it detracting from the Department’s effective operation. 188. Defendant Cox told Cooper, “First and foremost, Mr. Shirvell, his job is, he helps preserve state criminal convictions when they’re challenged in federal court. He does that well from 8:30 to 5:00, very well. Him blogging, it’s not impacting the mission of the office.” 189. On Thursday, September 30, 2010, the day after Defendant Cox’s interview, Plaintiff Shirvell took a short medical leave of absence due to numerous, graphic death threats and other harassment that Plaintiff Shirvell began to endure as a result of expressing his political, moral, and religious beliefs on national television. Expelled MSU student Secord, among many others, posted Plaintiff Shirvell’s home address, phone number, and e-mail online and encouraged others to harass Plaintiff Shirvell non-stop. 190. Also on September 30, 2010, Armstrong, without having served Plaintiff Shirvell any notice of the PPO request, released his request to the media (along with a multi-page narrative of events), stated that a hearing on the request was scheduled for October 4, 2010, and announced that Plaintiff Shirvell had been barred from the University of Michigan campus at Armstrong’s request. During the evening of September 30, 2010, a 57

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 58 of 79

Pg ID 58

detective with the Eaton County Sheriff’s office served Plaintiff Shirvell with notice of the hearing on the request for a PPO. 191. Later on September 30th, the then-Governor of Michigan (and former attorney general) Jennifer Granholm sent out the following message from her personal twitter and Facebook accounts: “If I was still Attorney General and Andrew Shirvell worked for me, he would have already been fired.” Plaintiff Shirvell had previously criticized Granholm in Plaintiff Shirvell’s RightMichigan.com blog posts for Granholm’s promotion of abortion rights as a supposedly Catholic politician. 192. On Friday, October 1, 2010, expelled MSU student Secord sent Plaintiff Shirvell a harassing, crass e-mail at 2:28 a.m., in which Secord let Plaintiff Shirvell know that he had taken pictures of Plaintiff Shirvell protesting Armstrong on May 8, 2010 and had sold them to Anderson Cooper’s show. 193. Following Defendant Cox’s interview with Cooper – in which Defendant Cox had defended Plaintiff Shirvell’s First Amendment rights – Defendant Cox came under enormous political and media pressure from homosexual rights activists and their allies (many of whom were not Michigan residents) to fire Plaintiff Shirvell due to the content of Plaintiff Shirvell’s outside, non-work-related speech regarding Armstrong and Armstrong’s

58

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 59 of 79

Pg ID 59

policies. The political and media pressure was engineered by Armstrong’s openly homosexual Hollywood publicist, Howard Bragman. 194. Due to all this political and media pressure, Defendant Cox determined that Plaintiff Shirvell had become a political liability for him personally and, thus, dramatically reversed course on October 1, 2010 – just two days after defending Plaintiff Shirvell on national television. In a radio interview with WWJ 950, Defendant Cox announced that Plaintiff Shirvell would be subject to a “disciplinary hearing” when Plaintiff Shirvell returned from his medical leave of absence. 195. By October 1, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell had received several messages of support from fellow assistant attorneys general. The subject line of one such e-mail message was, “Thinking of you & keeping you in my prayers, for sure.” 196. On or about Monday, October 4, 2010, Defendant Cox assigned Defendant Ondejko to conduct an internal investigation of Plaintiff Shirvell, purportedly due to Armstrong’s filing of a request for a PPO against Plaintiff Shirvell. Defendant Cox also assigned his personal friend, Defendant Cameron, to oversee Defendant Ondejko’s so-called investigation. However, Ondejko was the sole investigator. The investigation was not a criminal matter. 59

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 60 of 79

Pg ID 60

197. Also on October 4, 2010, Armstrong, through an attorney provided by the University of Michigan, unilaterally rescheduled the PPO hearing for October 25, 2010. 198. On or about Tuesday, October 5, 2010, Defendant Ondejko placed a phone call to University of Michigan Public Safety Detective Jason Forsberg in order to pressure Forsberg into submitting a police report about Plaintiff Shirvell to the Washtenaw County Prosecutor’s office. Since June 2010, and completely unbeknownst to Plaintiff Shirvell, Armstrong had been incessantly complaining to Forsberg about the “Chris Armstrong Watch” blog. Forsberg repeatedly informed Armstrong that what Armstrong was complaining about was not actionable under the criminal law. Specifically, Forsberg had explained to Armstrong that “the circumstances described to me did not constitute stalking.” 199. On Wednesday, October 6, 2010, Forsberg submitted a police report to the Washtenaw County Prosecutor’s office for review and warrant authorization. The police report contained everything that Forsberg had collected from June 2010 onwards, including “witness” statements from Armstrong, Armstrong’s friends, and University of Michigan employees as well as print-outs from the “Chris Armstrong Watch” blog.

60

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 61 of 79

Pg ID 61

200. On Friday, October 8, 2010, Defendant Cox personally met with Armstrong at the Michigan Union on the University of Michigan’s campus. Armstrong wanted Plaintiff Shirvell fired from his job at the Department. At this meeting, Defendant Cox groveled before Armstrong and apologized to him. Upon information and belief, the only other time that Defendant Cox had gotten so personally involved in an “investigation” was when he infamously interviewed Kwame Kilpatrick in the spring of 2003. 201. After Defendant Cox met with Armstrong, Armstrong was immediately interviewed by Defendants Ondejko and Cameron. In this interview – and in every other interview that Defendant Ondejko did regarding the internal investigation – the witness was not put under oath nor was the interview recorded. 202. By Monday, October 18, 2010, Defendant Ondejko had concluded his internal investigation of Plaintiff Shirvell. Plaintiff Shirvell had originally been scheduled to return from his medical leave of absence on October 18th, but Plaintiff Shirvell’s doctor requested an extension on Plaintiff Shirvell’s behalf until Friday, November 5, 2010. On October 18th, Defendant Bramble wrote to Plaintiff Shirvell and approved the extension.

61

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 62 of 79

Pg ID 62

203. In a letter dated Wednesday, October 20, 2010, Defendant Bramble wrote to Plaintiff Shirvell to schedule a disciplinary conference for November 5, 2010. 204. On Monday, October 25, 2010, the day of the scheduled PPO hearing, Armstrong voluntarily dismissed his request for a PPO just hours before the start of the hearing. As a result, Armstrong became the focus of unfavorable news coverage. 205. On Tuesday, October 26, 2010, the Washtenaw County Prosecutor’s office issued a memorandum, in which it refused to file criminal “stalking” or “harassment” charges against Plaintiff Shirvell, explicitly finding that Plaintiff Shirvell’s activity with respect to Armstrong constituted constitutionally-protected speech, as Plaintiff Shirvell “has a right to criticize the qualifications, campaign promises, or public views of the student body president.” The Washtenaw County Prosecutor, Brian Mackie, is a Democrat. 206. On or about October 26, 2010, Armstrong retained Gordon, a lawyer who typically litigates employment-related matters. 207. On or about October 26, 2010, Gordon contacted Defendant Ondejko about the internal investigation into Plaintiff Shirvell and used her prior relationship with Defendant Ondejko to improperly influence the 62

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 63 of 79

Pg ID 63

investigation. Specifically, Defendant Ondejko knew Gordon had specific knowledge of Defendant Ondejko’s June 30, 2008 deposition testimony in the Ave Maria lawsuit, which contained some disturbing, embarrassing, and potentially criminal information vis-à-vis Defendant Ondejko’s role in helping Fr. Orsi to cleanse child pornography off the hardrive of Fr. Thomas’ computer during the fall of 2005. Furthermore, Defendant Ondejko knew that Gordon knew that Defendant Ondejko had never reported his 2005 conversation with Fr. Orsi to his superiors at the Department. As a result, Defendant Ondejko allowed Gordon to improperly influence the internal investigation. 208. Upon information and belief, Gordon gave Defendant Ondejko substantial additional information on Plaintiff Shirvell, including information concerning Secord’s expulsion from MSU. At the time Gordon provided the information to Defendant Ondejko, Gordon knew it to be entirely baseless. 209. On October 26, 2010, Defendant Ondejko, with the implicit authorization, approval, or knowing acquiescence of Defendants Cox, Cameron, Isaacs, and Bramble, re-opened the internal investigation into Plaintiff Shirvell. In his final report Defendant Ondejko stated, “Since the initial investigation

63

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 64 of 79

Pg ID 64

memorandum dated October 18, 2010, I have discovered additional pertinent information relating to AAG Shirvell’s prior conduct.” 210. On October 26, 2010, Defendant Ondejko conducted a lengthy interview with Secord’s step-father, Gene Cecchini, at his home. On the following day, Defendant Ondejko returned to the home and conducted an additional lengthy interview with Secord’s mother, Vicki Cecchini. 211. Defendant Ondejko also obtained numerous hearsay documents from the Cecchinis, which were full of obvious, disgusting smears against Plaintiff Shirvell. Without ever questioning Secord or even ascertaining whether or not a police report of the assault that Secord committed on October 5, 2008 existed, Defendant Ondejko incorporated into his report all of the information provided to him by the Cecchinis and Gordon, and it comprised nearly one-third of the final investigatory report. 212. In the investigatory report, Defendant Ondejko never disclosed that he obtained any information about Plaintiff Shirvell from Gordon and, in fact, went to great pains to cover-up the fact that he had several contacts with Gordon. Defendant Ondejko knew, or should have known had he done an adequate investigation, that the information Gordon provided to him about Secord was entirely baseless. Defendants Cox, Cameron, Isaacs, and

64

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 65 of 79

Pg ID 65

Bramble implicitly authorized, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in Defendant Ondejko’s actions. 213. On Monday, November 1, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell’s September 29, 2010 interview with the Daily Show aired. 214. On Tuesday, November 2, 2010, Defendant Schuette was elected the next Attorney General of Michigan. 215. On Wednesday, November 3, 2010, the University of Michigan significantly modified its so-called trespass warning against Plaintiff Shirvell after Plaintiff Shirvell threatened to sue the University over the blatant violation of his constitutional rights. But at Armstrong’s urging, the modified ban did not permit Plaintiff Shirvell to make physical or verbal contact with Armstrong or to be in the same place as Armstrong on campus when Plaintiff Shirvell could reasonably anticipate Armstrong would be present – and if Plaintiff Shirvell became aware of Armstrong at Plaintiff Shirvell’s location while on campus, Plaintiff Shirvell had to leave that immediate area. 216. In essence, a reasonable official would understand that the modified trespass warning/campus ban issued on November 3, 2010 served as an unconstitutional abridgment on Plaintiff Shirvell’s First Amendment right

65

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 66 of 79

Pg ID 66

to freedom of speech and served as an extrajudicial, de-facto personal protection order for Armstrong against Plaintiff Shirvell. 217. On Friday, November 5, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell returned from his voluntary medical leave of absence and his scheduled disciplinary conference took place. At this time, Plaintiff Shirvell learned that the individual assigned to investigate Plaintiff Shirvell’s constitutionallyprotected off-duty conduct was Defendant Ondejko. 218. Defendants Ondejko, Bramble, and Cameron comprised the disciplinary review panel at the November 5, 2010 conference. Assistant Attorney General Denise Barton, Chief of the PEET Division, was also present. The conference lasted several hours and was not recorded. During the conference, Defendants Cameron, Ondejko, and Bramble forced Plaintiff Shirvell to answer questions about Plaintiff Shirvell’s outside political activities concerning Armstrong, which Plaintiff Shirvell did. 219. Plaintiff Shirvell, through counsel, also submitted documents to the panel, including the Washtenaw County Prosecutor’s October 26, 2010 memorandum and the University of Michigan’s November 3, 2010 written decision significantly modifying the so-called trespass warning/campus ban previously imposed on Plaintiff Shirvell. Although both these items were widely reported in the media, Defendants Ondejko, Cameron, and 66

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 67 of 79

Pg ID 67

Bramble claimed to be completely unaware of them. Plaintiff Shirvell also provided other information to the panel, such as the fact that Defendant Isaacs, Restuccia, McGormley, Monticello, and Sandler all knew about the blog as early as mid-May 2010. Again, Defendants Ondejko, Cameron, and Bramble all claimed to be unaware of this vital information. 220. At the end of the conference, Defendants Cameron, Bramble, and Ondejko told Plaintiff Shirvell and his attorneys to wait in another room. At this point, Defendant Isaacs came to the conference room and had a discussion with the panel. 221. Following Defendant Isaacs’ departure, Plaintiff Shirvell and his attorneys were let back in the conference room and told by Defendants Cameron, Bramble, and Ondejko that the conference would resume for a second day of questioning and submission of documents either Tuesday, November 9, 2010 or Wednesday, November 10, 2010. Defendant Bramble then placed Plaintiff Shirvell on paid administrative leave. 222. On Saturday, November 6, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell’s attorney, Philip Thomas, received a voicemail from Defendant Cameron informing him that the disciplinary conference would resume on the afternoon of Monday, November 8, 2010. The change in date was not reported in the media.

67

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 68 of 79

Pg ID 68

223. On the afternoon of November 8, 2010, Plaintiff Shirvell and his attorneys arrived for what they had been promised would be a resumption of the disciplinary conference so that Plaintiff Shirvell could answer further questions and provide additional information. They were instead made to wait for almost a half-hour before Defendant Bramble let them into the conference room. Defendant Bramble, Defendant Cameron, and Barton were again present. Defendant Ondejko was not present. 224. The disciplinary conference resumed for approximately three to five (3 to 5) minutes, at which time Defendant Bramble informed Plaintiff Shirvell that he was terminated effective 5:00 p.m. When Plaintiff Shirvell pressed for an explanation as to why he was being terminated, Defendant Bramble provided none. 225. Prior to Plaintiff Shirvell’s termination, Defendant Ondejko told Gordon that the disciplinary conference would resume on November 8th and not the 9th or 10th as had been reported in the media and as Plaintiff Shirvell had been previously told. Defendant Ondejko also told Gordon that Plaintiff Shirvell’s employment with the Department would be terminated on November 8th. 226. On the morning of November 8, 2010, Gordon e-mailed Armstrong, saying, “For reasons I will explain later, I want to be ready with a 68

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 69 of 79

Pg ID 69

statement today” concerning Plaintiff Shirvell’s termination (emphasis original). In her morning e-mail message, Gordon had already typed-up a “press release” celebrating Plaintiff Shirvell’s firing. 227. After Plaintiff Shirvell was notified of his termination, Gordon sent out her November 8, 2010 press release, entitled, “Andrew Shirvell Terminated.” Gordon then went on Anderson Cooper’s CNN show that very night in order to celebrate Plaintiff Shirvell’s firing. In her interview with Cooper, Gordon praised Defendant Ondejko as a “solid investigator” and demonstrated that she had inside knowledge of the investigation by saying that the internal investigatory report was over “500 pages” long – a detail that was not released to Plaintiff Shirvell, the public, or the media at the time. 228. In fact, at the time of Plaintiff Shirvell’s termination, Defendant Ondejko still had not finished writing the main body of the investigatory report, although the attachments to the report, which Defendant Ondejko had apparently gathered by November 8th, did equal over five-hundred (500) pages. Plaintiff Shirvell only became aware that an investigatory report even existed as a result of Gordon’s CNN appearance. 229. Plaintiff Shirvell obtained the investigatory report in January 2011, after he was forced to pay for it. Defendants Ondejko, Cameron, Cox, Bramble, 69

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 70 of 79

Pg ID 70

and Isaacs, however, sent (or authorized the sending of) the entire investigatory report to Armstrong for free in or about mid-to-late November 2010, shortly after its completion. 230. The day after Plaintiff Shirvell’s termination, Defendant Ondejko’s homosexual daughter, Rachel, posted the following public message via her Twitter account: “My dad’s been swamped with this case for months. Finally, Michigan’s gay-bashing, student stalking assistant AG is fired!” At the time that Defendant Ondejko’s daughter sent this message, she publicly claimed to have entered into a “same-sex marriage” with another woman. 231. Similar to his failure to disclose his repeated contacts with Gordon, Defendant Ondejko never disclosed in his investigatory report that he had been sharing details of his on-going, confidential internal investigation with members of his family, including his homosexual daughter. Nevertheless, upon information and belief, Defendants Cox, Cameron, Isaacs, and Bramble were aware of Defendant Ondejko’s pro-homosexual rights bias at the time that Defendant Ondejko was assigned to investigate Plaintiff Shirvell. 232. Plaintiff Shirvell has grieved his unlawful termination through the Civil Service system, and that process remains on-going as of today’s date. 70

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 71 of 79

Pg ID 71

233. On October 17, 2012, Ingham Circuit Court Judge Paula J.M. Manderfield issued an Opinion and Order granting Plaintiff Shirvell unemployment benefits because she found that Plaintiff Shirvell’s conduct regarding Armstrong was protected by the First Amendment, given that the Department admitted at Plaintiff Shirvell’s August 30, 2011 unemployment hearing that the “content and conduct described in the [Chris Armstrong Watch] blog goes directly to the reason that the investigation was conducted and the termination ultimately occurred.” COUNT I RETALIATION FOR EXERCISING FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

234. Plaintiff Shirvell repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 233 as if set forth fully herein. 235. Plaintiff Shirvell engaged in constitutionally-protected conduct, e.g. blogging, granting media interviews, protesting, speaking out at a public meeting, reporting unlawful activity, and documenting police actions. 236. Plaintiff Shirvell has a clearly established right as a public employee to be free from retaliation for exercising rights protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, including his right as a private citizen to speak out on a matter of public concern where there is no 71

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 72 of 79

Pg ID 72

compelling state interest justifying an adverse employment action against Plaintiff Shirvell – as previously admitted by Defendant Cox in his CNN interview. 237. Defendants have retaliated against Plaintiff Shirvell for exercising his First Amendment rights by terminating his public employment with the Department. 238. Defendants acted under color of state law and in concert with one another and showed by their wrongful conduct intentional, outrageous, and reckless disregard for Plaintiff Shirvell’s constitutional rights. 239. Defendants acted out of intent to punish Plaintiff Shirvell for, and to deter him from, exercising his First Amendment rights because of the viewpoints Plaintiff Shirvell expressed as a private citizen on a matter of public concern. 240. Upon information and belief, no other Department employee other than Plaintiff Shirvell has ever been disciplined for – let alone discharged for – engaging in political activity outside the Department. 241. The two prior disciplinary measures meted out to Plaintiff Shirvell on August 31, 2010 and September 20, 2010, respectively, evinced a pattern of mistreatment by the Defendants based on Plaintiff Shirvell’s engagement in protected constitutional activities. 72

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 73 of 79

Pg ID 73

242. The primary motivation for Plaintiff Shirvell’s discharge from public employment was the constitutionally-protected activities in which Plaintiff Shirvell engaged – and Plaintiff Shirvell’s discharge would not have occurred but for Plaintiff Shirvell exercising his First Amendment rights in a way that was displeasing to the Defendants. 243. Defendants’ unlawful actions caused the chilling of Plaintiff Shirvell’s First Amendment rights. Plaintiff Shirvell was deterred from exercising his First Amendment rights as a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct. 244. Defendants Cox, Ondejko, Isaacs, Cameron, and Bramble each played a direct role in the termination decision. Defendant Ondejko was the sole internal investigator and his investigation provided the purported basis for Defendants Cameron and Bramble to recommend to Defendant Isaacs that Plaintiff Shirvell be discharged from state employment. In turn, Defendants Cameron and Bramble’s recommendation provided the purported basis for Defendant Isaacs to then recommend to Defendant Cox that Plaintiff Shirvell be discharged. 245. Defendants Cox, Ondejko, Isaacs, Cameron, and Bramble each took action to terminate Plaintiff Shirvell to advance their own personal interests. 246. Defendant Cox took action to terminate Plaintiff Shirvell because Defendant Cox believed that Plaintiff Shirvell was no longer politically 73

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 74 of 79

Pg ID 74

useful to him, but instead had become a personal political liability. Defendant Cox believed it was in his best personal and political interests to appease Armstrong and Armstrong’s powerful media and political supporters who demanded that Plaintiff Shirvell be discharged from state employment. 247. In April 2013, Defendant Cox drew media attention to himself by publicly disclosing that he had “evolved” on “same-sex marriage.” Specifically, Defendant Cox stated that he was in favor of “homosexual marriage” and wanted the State’s 2004 constitutional amendment barring it overturned. Defendant Cox also took the occasion to join a loud chorus of homosexual activists in condemning Dave Agema, Michigan’s representative on the Republican National Committee, because Agema had spoken out against the homosexual lifestyle via Facebook. Defendant Cox stated, “What Dave posted is just stupid, just dumb politics . . ..” Defendant Cox called on Agema to apologize and encouraged other Republicans to speak out against Agema. 248. About a month later, in May 2013, it was widely reported in the media that a state-wide poll purported to show that for the first time a majority of Michigan citizens now supported “homosexual marriage” and expanding “rights” for homosexuals. 74

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 75 of 79

Pg ID 75

249. Defendant Ondejko took action to terminate Plaintiff Shirvell because he believed that doing so was in his best personal interest. Defendant Ondejko had a pro-homosexual rights bias since his daughter was a homosexual activist who claimed to be “married” to another woman. Defendant Ondejko also wanted to maintain his job as a criminal investigator with the Department. Defendant Ondejko knew that Gordon and her client, Armstrong, wanted Plaintiff Shirvell fired. Gordon knew that Defendant Ondejko was charged with investigating Plaintiff Shirvell’s political activities outside of the Department. Defendant Ondejko knew that Gordon had information on him that could possibly destroy his career at the Department, i.e. obstructing justice in a child pornography investigation. 250. Defendant Isaacs took action to terminate Plaintiff Shirvell in order to advance her career at the Department and cover-up for the fact that she knew about the “Chris Armstrong Watch” blog since at least mid -May 2010. Defendant Isaacs had applied to become Defendant Schuette’s chief deputy. Defendant Isaacs had already fallen out of Defendant Cox’s good graces once in 2005, when she abruptly resigned her position. Defendant Isaacs needed to stay in Defendant Cox’s good graces if she wanted to continue as Chief Deputy Attorney General under Defendant Schuette. 75

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 76 of 79

Pg ID 76

Shortly after Plaintiff Shirvell was fired, Defendant Schuette announced that Defendant Isaacs would remain in her powerful position as Chief Deputy. 251. Defendant Cameron took action to terminate Plaintiff Shirvell in order to advance his career at the Department and his own desire for elected political office. Defendant Cameron was a close friend of Defendant Cox’s who had obtained a reputation at the Department as someone who did Defendant Cox’s bidding. Defendant Cameron wanted to maintain his powerful position as a Bureau Chief and his high salary. Bureau Chiefs were appointed by the Attorney General and served at his or her pleasure. Defendant Cameron applied to stay on as Bureau Chief with the Department under Defendant Schuette’s administration. Defendant Cameron needed to stay in the good graces of Defendant Cox if he wanted to maintain his powerful and lucrative position within the Department. Shortly after Plaintiff Shirvell was fired, Defendant Schuette announced that Defendant Cameron would remain in his powerful position as a Bureau Chief. In 2012, Defendant Cameron ran for elected office in Northville Township. 252. Defendant Bramble took action to terminate Plaintiff Shirvell in order to advance his career at the Department and stay in the good graces of 76

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 77 of 79

Pg ID 77

Defendants Cox and Isaacs. Defendant Isaacs was Defendant Bramble’s direct supervisor. After Plaintiff Shirvell was fired, Defendant Bramble stayed on as the director of Human Resources for the Department until May 2011, which was well-after Defendant Schuette was inaugurated as state Attorney General. Defendant Bramble was able to collect significant pay and benefits by remaining in his position far after his scheduled retirement date of December 31, 2010. 253. Defendants Cox, Ondejko, Isaacs, Cameron, and Bramble are not immune from suit in their individual capacities because their wrongful acts violated Plaintiff Shirvell’s clearly established constitutional rights. The contours of the right to engage in outside political activity were sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that discharging Plaintiff Shirvell from public employment would violate Plaintiff Shirvell’s right to engage in political activity outside of the Department. 254. Defendant Schuette, in his official capacity as state Attorney General, as well as any and all successors, is connected to, and responsible for, the other Defendants’ violations of Plaintiff Shirvell’s constitutional rights. As state Attorney General, Defendant Schuette has the power to hire and fire all Department employees. As state Attorney General, Defendant Schuette has the power to rectify the other Defendants’ constitutional 77

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 78 of 79

Pg ID 78

violations by rehiring Plaintiff Shirvell as an assistant attorney general and providing Plaintiff Shirvell with all back-pay, but thus far Defendant Schuette has refused to do so. 255. On or about December 29, 2011, Assistant Attorney General James C. Shell was arrested, and then subsequently charged with possession of a firearm while under the influence and with reckless use of a firearm. Shell resigned as president of the Grand Ledge Public Schools Board of Education, but Defendant Schuette did not discharge Shell from public employment. Shell remains an assistant attorney general with the Department. 256. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongdoing, Plaintiff Shirvell has suffered significant loss of his constitutional rights, income, future earnings, and the right to enjoyment of his livelihood as well as emotional distress, humiliation, mortification, embarrassment, sleeplessness, anxiety, and depression. RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Andrew Shirvell demands a monetary judgment from Defendants Michael A. Cox, Michael Ondejko, Carol L. Isaacs, Thomas C. Cameron, and Douglas Bramble, all sued in their individual capacity, in whatever amount he is found to be entitled plus interest, costs, reasonable attorney fees, and 78

4:13-cv-14633-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 11/07/13 Pg 79 of 79

Pg ID 79

such other relief as the Court finds just and equitable. Plaintiff Shirvell further demands judgment from Defendant Bill Schuette, sued in his official capacity as state Attorney General, in the form of an Order placing Plaintiff Shirvell in the position he would have been in had there been no wrongdoing by the Defendants; in the form of an injunction out of this Court prohibiting any further acts of wrongdoing; an award of interest, costs, and reasonable attorney fees; and whatever other equitable relief appears appropriate at the time of final judgment. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Plaintiff Andrew Shirvell demands jury trial of all issues raised by this Complaint.

s/Andrew L. Shirvell Andrew L. Shirvell P.O. Box 353701 Palm Coast, FL 32135 shirvell@sbcglobal.net (734) 476-3916 P70472

Dated: November 7, 2013

79

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful